Except for the (to me) silly atemporal collectivist (classist) claims logic, it is pretty hard to argue that the existing means of production are proper and just private property. There's plenty of accumulated privilege (feudal, state capitalist, etc.) embedded in the structure
ownership of current productive capital. Libertarians should recognize and take serious this age-old injustice, which all too often is neglected or even overlooked. Nozick discussed it, and so did Rothbard. The latter even considered land reform as a means to undo these historic
injustices. The problem here is that injustice is in the very fabric of the means of production in society, but that it is also mixed up with proper value creation. One does not undo the other, and it is very difficult to produce a convincing ethical argument for either complete
redistribution or starting from scratch. Any attempted solution would be unjust. My own "best way" forward follows from the proper economic recognition that capital only has value due to its contribution to valued consumer goods. Consequently, it is not possible to "stay ahead"
in terms of wealth in a free market unless one outdoes others in producing benefits for consumers. This suggests that unhampered market mechanisms will put capital to proper use, whereas it is the restrictions to those mechanisms that cause the unjust distribution. One must thus
adopt the consumer-value perspective, as Austrians do since Menger, on production including capital ownership. From my point of view, this suggests the best way to wipe the slate clean is to get rid of any and all distortive restrictions so that market mechanisms can work their
"magic" and allocate capital to the hands that create the greatest good possible for consumers. Just ridding the economy of such distortions does not undo inequalities and injustices in the starting point, but will quickly reallocate capital and thus restructure production so
that consumer welfare is "maximized." Those presently living off the privilege of capital ownership will be "forced" to use the capital to serve consumers--or lose it (and their wealth). Those who are better suited to satisfy people's wants will thus be able to acquire the
necessary means of production, so that they can properly serve mankind. It's not a perfect solution in the sense that it does not address historic injustices, but this is also not a solvable problem. There is only the illusion of solving it by adopting a class-based analysis
that offers an individual a right due to their class and not due to their actions. In other words, whoever is currently "working class," whether or not they do or have done anything, have a claim to the means of production by virtue of belonging to a class that, as abstraction,
built factories etc throughout centuries and were, by some (undefined) measure, "underpaid." Similarly, this logic claims that those benefitting from privilege due to their class have no right to what they created even if they did work really hard. There's plenty of issues one
can raise about this type of "analysis," but it should be sufficient to just say that it is silly. It's difficult to understand how anyone could take that type of nonsense seriously, other than for simply emotional reasons. Yet, again, it would be a fundamental error not to
recognize the centuries of injustice embedded in the capital structure of the present, and as reflected in its ownership. And the privilege just keeps amassing, although the extent of enforced privilege has increasingly (but excruciatingly slowly!) been limited by more market--by
entrepreneurs creatively destroying ineffective and legacy-based industries and challenging legal privileged by creating new markets and categories of goods and services. We're nowhere near justice nor free market, but privilege is not sustainable in the long term. It will
crumble, and then we will have to face the question of what is the way forward. Do we try to entangle proper contribution from privilege (likely an impossibility), engage in class-based revenge politics, or simply allow consumers to decide how and by whom they are best served?
